Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-161393-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <221f6cfe-07c9-4fc0-a908-84276b8e4088@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:10:16 +0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Sending patches as eml message attachment?
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <Zi4bMx2FKuviJi0M@archie.me>
 <2024042828-occupier-confused-e046@gregkh>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2024042828-occupier-confused-e046@gregkh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/28/24 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:47:31PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
>> error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
>> aforementioned way accepted?
> 
> No.
> 
>> If not, why?
> 
> Why would they be?
> 
> Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
> on the contents, right?  Try it yourself and see.
> 

OK.

I experimented this by sending dummy patches to myself, as attachment.
I replied to the patch using mutt and thunderbird. In mutt, the patch
contents was quoted, whereas in the latter, it was missing. Hence,
email clients are inconsistent on handling patch attachments.

> Also, .eml is an odd standard, what's wrong with text?
> 

It's also text format like mbox or git-format-patch(1) patches,
though.

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara